As people are well aware there was a shooting in New York recently, what people may not have known was the fact that it was a gun free zone. If you look at the Virginia Tech shootings you have a similar situation, where there were several members of the class whom were in ROTC and should have been allowed to carry a concealed firearm.

Then we next have the issue where the Media continued to pound on about 90% of the Guns confiscated in Mexico were from the United States, however that isn't exactly true.

Quote:

But in written Congressional testimony on March 12, the National Rifle Association's Chris W. Cox noted that the missile and rocket launchers Mora cited are "weapons that isn't available over the counter anywhere in the U.S., but is reportedly often smuggled from Guatemala." And, as with the "AK-47s" mentioned above, if the drug cartels have actual assault rifles, they're not getting them from the U.S. Automatic weapons (machine guns) have been heavily regulated since 1934 and the sale of new machine guns for private ownership ended in 1986.

Also in his testimony, Cox pointed out that the Mexican government itself has hindered the efforts of U.S. agents to attack the problem, refusing to share serial numbers of captured weapons and not allowing local authorities to cooperate with U.S. authorities.

I feel I must point out that testifying under oath, means that if the man lied he would be committing perjury which gives his testimony added credibility, because if he had lied under oath the Dems would have had him up on perjury already.

I'm under the mindset that the reason they want to do away with the 2nd Amendment is because they want to eliminate the keystone amendment. Without the 2nd Amendment, none of your rights are protected. The reason the 2nd Amendment was created was due to the aftermath of Shay's Rebellion and the populace being angered by the abuse of power via the Massachusetts Government. When the Articles of Confederation were thrown out and the Constitution was created, the reason why the 2nd Amendment was put in place was so that a situation like that would hopefully never happen again (excessive taxation to the point people couldn't keep their land and homes).

Kates goes further, writing that "a very substantial proportion" of the articles supporting individual gun rights are by scholars who would have been happy to find evidence that guns could be banned. When guns were outlawed in D.C., crime and murder rates skyrocketed. Still, the sentiment exists and must be countered with facts. All of this highlights why it is so important to appoint judges who understand that their job is to interpret the law, as enacted by will of the people, rather than make it up as they go along.

John R. Lott: The number is large, but we only really know about the events through media coverage and the media rarely reports these events when they occur. Often when an attack is stopped only about one percent or so of the news stories will mention it. In other cases where permit holders stop an attack before anyone is harmed the attack simply isn't considered as newsworthy. This latter type of case occurred just last month in Memphis, Tennessee. Another recent case took place at a mall in Utah (a gun free zone) where an off-duty police officer stopped the attack).

Instead of setting up for a topic about gun-control, you started off with "The Media, Liberals" as your starting point and then made a blog post about happenings full of supposition based on a blog. I'm not even inclined to call your posts "blogs" anymore, but posts bordering on hate flames being used only to attack those of a specific party affiliation. These threads are blatant flames and you know it.

This is a topic for debate, you can debate the actual motivators, whether or not the gun control is a legitimate stance, the media isn't actually doing this, etc.

I think that gun-control is a perfectly legitimate stance, and one I whole-heartedly agree with.

Now, i'm not saying that they should be banned outright, as criminal elements will always be able to get their hands on things that the civilian populace are denied, but tight controls on certain weapons is certainly a step in the right direction.

Quote:

When the Articles of Confederation were thrown out and the Constitution was created, the reason why the 2nd Amendment was put in place was so that a situation like that would hopefully never happen again (excessive taxation to the point people couldn't keep their land and homes).

That was 250 years ago - I don't think that an armed revolt would arise from gun control.

That was 250 years ago - I don't think that an armed revolt would arise from gun control.

Plus, in today's day and age, something like that wouldn't even get off the ground before the army got involved. If the government decides to go rogue on you, Garfy, your puny 45 caliber colt isn't going to do well against M16A1s and kevlar.

Hopefully, if history has taught us anything, it's that military superiority doesn't mean squat against an indigenous force willing to engage in guerrilla warfare in order to ensure their survival. All the same, I wouldn't mind having the same equipment though.

And with that said, I don't think crazy people and criminal should be allowed to own weapons. 2nd Amendment or no.

How we protect our rights and ensure our safety would probably be a productive conversation worth having.

The only way that I think it's legitimate is if it's aimed at taking them away from criminals and not from law-abiding citizens.

Just think about it: if a person is law-abiding to begin with, what would be the logic behind restricting or taking away his/her right to own a gun? Penalizing people for being law-abiding makes no sense to me.

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.

Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."

The only way that I think it's legitimate is if it's aimed at taking them away from criminals and not from law-abiding citizens.

Just think about it: if a person is law-abiding to begin with, what would be the logic behind restricting or taking away his/her right to own a gun? Penalizing people for being law-abiding makes no sense to me.

But aren't most scenarios. Law abiding citizen buys gun. Citizen commits crime with gun. How do you know someone is a criminal before they commit the actual act?

But aren't most scenarios. Law abiding citizen buys gun. Citizen commits crime with gun. How do you know someone is a criminal before they commit the actual act?

Because criminal behavior usually begins to manifest itself at a young age, which is why I'm actually in favor of thorough background checks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastramiX

Guns are fine, however, they should be only limited to low and sporting grade profiles. An AK-47 is not, and never will be, a "personal defense weapon"; It's called an assault rifle for a good reason.

It's also great fun to shoot, the ammunition's cheap as dirt, and it requires very little maintenance to remain fully functional. It's a great home defense weapon, and a fun plinker. You should try one out.

And aside from accuracy, the only difference between an "assault rifle" and certain types of sporting arms is ammunition capacity. In other words: put a large magazine on a sporting rifle and *POOF* -"it's an assault rifle! Ban it!" Ridiculous.

Really, though, everyone should just check out what the DoJ has to say about crimes involving firearms and draw their own conclusions instead of listening to politically-motivated scare tactics.

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.

Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."

The difference is, full auto guns have limits and bans placed on them while single fire do not have as much. Assault Rifles are not controlled because they are guns; they are controlled because they are capable of full auto fire. In other words, "assault". And no, the ammunition capability is not kept down because of the ammo, but because of spray.

Now, if you can justify why a civilian would need a fully automatic assault rifle with a 30-60 round magazine then I'll be glad to hear you out.

Where did you hear that? You have to have a Federal Firearms License to legally purchase and own a full-auto firearm of any kind, and those don't grow on trees. And you can't buy a full-auto firearm at Wal-Mart.

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.

Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."

Where did you hear that? You have to have a Federal Firearms License to legally purchase and own a full-auto firearm of any kind, and those don't grow on trees. And you can't buy a full-auto firearm at Wal-Mart.

So, in summary, an assault rifle is not a sporting rifle with a larger magazine.

Unless you are being sarcastic, and I will detract my posts. I just thought you were implying that is was ridiculous that civilians don't have access to them, and I asked for justification on why they should.

Avery, the "assault rifles" that are commonly available to the public are all semi-automatic, and are incapable of full-auto fire without a lot of illegal modification. This includes the AK-47s that you can buy at your local gun store. They've been manufactured to be semi-auto only. Do you seriously believe that the full-auto versions are commonly available? What you're referring to are the versions that are only available to the military and the police.

Like I said, you have to have a Federal Firearms License, which is very hard to get, to legally purchase and own a full-auto weapon. Machine guns are not commonly available to the public.

So yeah, I think that you misunderstood me.

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.

Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."

Avery, the "assault rifles" that are commonly available to the public are all semi-automatic, and are incapable of full-auto fire without a lot of illegal modification. This includes the AK-47s. Do you seriously believe that the full-auto versions are commonly available?

Like I said, you have to have a Federal Firearms License, which is very hard to get, to legally purchase and own a full-auto weapon. Machine guns are not commonly available to the public.

I stand corrected.

However, seeing as they no longer have full auto capability they should not be called "Assault Rifles" any longer as they do not fit the definition.

I believe what Pastrami was pointing out was the desire some civilians have for actual Assault Rifles to be available to the public, which I believe I debated against in the Gun Control thread in Kavars a long time ago.

However, thank you for pointing out the variants that are available. Had forgotten about them.

Well, I've never wanted one. They're impractical, and civilians don't have any real need for them, although they were available to the public until the 1920s and Prohibition, I think. The only thing that they're really useful for is war. I certainly don't believe that full-auto assault rifles should be available to the general public. That would be crazy. I don't think that even the NRA is advocating something like that.

And I agree with you that they should not be called "assault rifles" if they are semi-auto only because they don't fit the definition, just like you said.

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.

Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."

Which would you rather have if you saw a bear comin at you. Single shot rifle, or an AK-47 with enough ammo to take him down.

Personally? If I had a full auto, I'd be too eager to spray in desperation and probably miss most of the shots due to feedback, leave myself open, then get mauled depending.

If I was going to have a gun on me in such a situation I'd have either a high caliber side arm, or a high caliber semi-automatic. A .45 or so Revolver is what I hear is the norm for such a backup weapon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

I live in AZ. recently there have been a few home invasions. Multiple armed men. They kill the homeowners regardless of if they cooperate.

Which is indeed terrible, but it is up for speculation on how well prepared they would be for such an invasion even with the guns. They are nice around to have in concept, but when someone breaks down a door and points a gun at you there isn't a lot of time to kick open the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

Then of course there's the collector. though you can get the permit to have those.

Indeed, valid reason. Although, I think their ammunition and clip sizes when loaded are limited as well unless they have supervision from a Fed licensed individual or have the license themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

Z-Day

Zombie Survival Guide warns against Assault Rifles because of their ability to go full auto. Best companion you could have would be a WW2 M1 Carbine, my personal favorite semi-auto rifle. That and a few side arms, but you wouldn't want to rely on them exclusively.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

WWIII

W3 will probably be fought more with nukes, but by then the general populous can no longer be called civilians!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

Graboids

Small machine gun for up close, sawn-off shotgun with a variety of different shells (HE, scatter, plug, etc), and an elephant gun. Barret .50 cal if I could get my hands on one. Or, just rely on the dynamite/remote car trick.

I'd be tempted to get an assault for Shriekers only because of the numbers, but I'd be afraid of the temptation to go full auto. Probably a pump/auto shotgun, small machine gun, and a backup Sar-21 bullpup.

And for ***blasters, back to the good ol M1 Carbine. Hell, keep one around for all 3 stages. The thing is up there with the AK-47 as one of the best guns to have ever been made for all around action.

However, seeing as they no longer have full auto capability they should not be called "Assault Rifles" any longer as they do not fit the definition.

Ehh, I'll concede that, but don't forget what Q said - it really doesn't take a lot of modification in order to get the AK you buy at a gun store to be fullauto. And thus, we have our problem. Criminals are more than willing do do a few illegal mods on their guns in order to have a full auto AK47.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

Ever go fishing on a stream in bear country? Which would you rather have if you saw a bear comin at you. Single shot rifle, or an AK-47 with enough ammo to take him down.

Why the hell would you need an AK to take him down? All you need is a handgun - empty a clip into a bear and he's going to be dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

I live in AZ. recently there have been a few home invasions. Multiple armed men. They kill the homeowners regardless of if they cooperate.

So? You figure if you had an AK47 full auto you could protect yourself? Guess what, if you had one, then they'd also be able to get one. And now, you're still ****ed because you have an AK and each one of the "Multiple armed men" have one too. You still lose

Welll the AK-47 would be my bet for Z day. Sturdy, easy to use, and good for the up close and personal encounters. Though I usually use a bolt action 30-06 with a scope. But the "Rock and roll" temptation makes a bit of sense. Since the AK is classified as an assault weapon, I'd say the average person should be able to have that. even if Z-day never happens, it would be a good idea to be trained to use such a weapon before that day... I like the Zombie survival guide, but I disagree with a few of their assessments. I'm shocked that in the H2H weapons, they neglected the weapon that even the Army issued. The Tomahawk. You can get the military version at a surplus store. at 24 oz it makes a better all around tool to have than even the crowbar. hehe there's even video on this site.http://www.knifecenter.com/kc_new/st....html?s=CS90VT
Tell me you wouldn't rather have that for Z day than a big bulky crow bar.
Assault rifles are better in the respect that they can carry more ammo. Regardless of the full auto, I'd rather have the fullload of ammo.

I like the M1, but... that whole *PING!!!* Dinner's ready! would be a drawback for me.

back to being (mostly) serious...
Keep in mind that the laws in some areas are very wierd when it comes to defining an assault rifle(lawmakers do not use the actual definition for such things). In many cases legitimate "mean looking" rifles are classified as assault rifles. That's my main objection to their banning. Lawmakers can be morons. BOLT ACTION RIFLES were included in assault rifle bans.

In home invasions, every little bit helps. I'd rather be armed to the teeth when it happens. Besides, you could be very ready when it happens. The better armed the better. though I will admit that for home defense, a good 12 gauge pump will do ya better. It also has the added advantage of the sound of the racking. But this isn't about what I think, it's what the person would feel more comfortable with. There was recently a guy who while leaving his house was set apon by several armed men. He shot two and killed the last in the car. In this state it's almost becoming a war zone in some areas. Mexican gangs are crossing the borders and attacking the innocent. It's darn near a war situation. at least in the southern towns.

OOOooo forgot about Bug invasion lol

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Keep in mind that the laws in some areas are very wierd when it comes to defining an assault rifle(lawmakers do not use the actual definition for such things). In many cases legitimate "mean looking" rifles are classified as assault rifles. That's my main objection to their banning. Lawmakers can be morons. BOLT ACTION RIFLES were included in assault rifle bans.

If it uses .50 caliber rounds, then yeah, I can see banning those.

Quote:

In home invasions, every little bit helps. I'd rather be armed to the teeth when it happens. Besides, you could be very ready when it happens. The better armed the better. though I will admit that for home defense, a good 12 gauge pump will do ya better.

That's pretty much overkill. If it's an invasion of a flock of ducks, then a shotgun would be great, but unless if you want to be charged with manslaughter with that blood splatter on your wall, then I'd rather use something of deterrence, like a 9 mm.

That's pretty much overkill. If it's an invasion of a flock of ducks, then a shotgun would be great, but unless if you want to be charged with manslaughter with that blood splatter on your wall, then I'd rather use something of deterrence, like a 9 mm.

Buckshot won't go through walls and accidentally kill your children sleeping in the other room.

That's pretty much overkill. If it's an invasion of a flock of ducks, then a shotgun would be great, but unless if you want to be charged with manslaughter with that blood splatter on your wall, then I'd rather use something of deterrence, like a 9 mm.

Shotgun. Less accuracy required. Low penetration. Plus, you can load it with rock salt rounds and oh man.... I used to keep the pump action loaded with one rock salt in the chamber. Stings like hell when you get shot. You think you're dead, and it's enough to scare off most would be assailants.

Not to mention the length of the barrel means it's even harder for a child to accidentally shoot themselves(though I still recommend trigger locks for when you are not home)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

Buckshot won't go through walls and accidentally kill your children sleeping in the other room.

Hence why a shotgun is actually the perfect home defense weapon

Wow something else we agree on...

The shotgun is my FIRST preference for home defense. Second is a revolver.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

I have a sword under my bed. If I have a home break-in, the intruder will wish I had a gun! Still, I prefer to have the option to purchase a firearm and not have that limited by gun-control. I have no problem with controlling assault rifles -even the semi-auto kind; or requiring that gun-owners be licensed and pass proficiency/safety tests in the same manner as a driver's license.

Also, I'm changing the title of the thread to be more relevant. This is clearly a thread about "gun control."

... or requiring that gun-owners be licensed and pass proficiency/safety tests in the same manner as a driver's license.

That would be preferable. I have no problem with requiring proficiency tests. Back when I was in the service they didn't just let you carry a loaded weapon. Before you could do that you had to pass several qualifications. I feel that we should be allowed to have any firearm we wish, but being qualified to carry or even transport it should require STRICT training and qualification.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

@ Ender: Depends on where you shoot the bear. Even black bears have pretty thick hides and skulls. Hit the wrong areas and someone else besides the bear will be sorry.

Empty a clip and yeah a wounded bear will die eventually.
Consider even if it runs away from you; until it has bled to death, other people will be in danger. It will be scared and even more dangerous to other people. That is if it doesn't first decide to just flat come after you instead wile you reload 'cuz it's now really pissed.

...not to mention all the hell in *any* case such a thing would catch from animal rights activists. I'm not talking the nice ones, either. The militant hypocrite wackos that would attack a cop who was just purging an area of a nuisance.

My point: you need something of significant power to kill it because conventional arms might only agitate it.

Though there probably are plenty of non-auto weapons to achieve that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery

The difference is, full auto guns have limits and bans placed on them while single fire do not have as much. Assault Rifles are not controlled because they are guns; they are controlled because they are capable of full auto fire. In other words, "assault". And no, the ammunition capability is not kept down because of the ammo, but because of spray.

Now, if you can justify why a civilian would need a fully automatic assault rifle with a 30-60 round magazine then I'll be glad to hear you out.

Well, I'll try.

Occupational hazards...calling to mind today's (4/8/09) little piracy incident, there are also just plain citizens on international waters for trade and such.

Or territory where cops generally 'just don't go'. OH sure they can go wherever they want, but I'm talking about areas (what few there actually are in this country) where you "don't stop for nothin' or no one".

Or you go hunting polar bears because a 9mm ain't gonna do worth jack **** to a, what 10 ft. tall ~half ton monster. (Of course you could just use an elephant gun and blow its head off. )

Still, I prefer to have the option to purchase a firearm and not have that limited by gun-control.

Agreed.

Quote:

I have no problem with controlling assault rifles -even the semi-auto kind;

Disagreed.

Quote:

or requiring that gun-owners be licensed and pass proficiency/safety tests in the same manner as a driver's license.

Fair enough.

I'm pretty sure law enforcement does scrutinize everyone and everything about everyone when applying. However I am now lead to believe state to state, it varies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kipperthefrog

Don't we control guns already? I read somewhere that fully automatic weapons are forbidden unless they are registered and the register closed in 1986.

QFE. Not to drag it out: Yeah, we do. Also we control (albeit state to state) Blades (swords, knives, and all else inbetween), and "dangerous" electronic/electrical equipment requires (at the *bare* minimum) an affidavit...also an exhaustive background check (as of late) depending on *just what it is* that you are purchasing. Same is true for super high powered lasers (never mind you'd practically need a sub-station transformer to actually POWER the thing, or at least 3-phase power). Sure you can buy stuff here and there, but honestly, do you REALLY think the government doesn't watch the surplus equipment it sells?

Also, Green laser pointers: Relatively harmless, right? We-hell, If you have ever purchased one (prior to or since) a certain law was enacted (due to inconsiderate jackasses pointing at air pilots), your name is on a 'list'. So if you or anyone else ever shine it at planes or choppers, everyone owning a greenie in your town will get a knock at their door by the cops.

I don't think I have to tell you what happens to you for pointing it at a street cop.

We'll murder them all, amid laughter and merriment...except for the few we take home to experiment!

Some argue that the economic reccesion is linked to the mass killings. It appears that stress and a seemingly ruined life is the primary motive to the killings. For example, a guy got divorced, lost his job and his beloved dog. He wants revenge and on christmaas eve, he goes to his ex wife's christmas party and open fires on the guests before gasolining the house to burn it down

Killing nasty people in the world doesn't help. They will be replaced. If guns were outlawed, they would just find some other way to kill. I say they need to find better ways of helping those kind of people get through their problems rather than take our constitutional rights away.

...oh please, people will find any reason or excuse to try to make sense of things or excuse them. While I totally agree with you on the general premise of not taking away constitutional rights, bottom line is if you take another's life in cold-blooded murder, you forfeit your own.

What did you have in mind for helping? To my knowledge we don't "institutionalize" any more those who are not bad enough to be in jail or prison but too repeatedly/hopelessly screwed up to ever carry on a normal productive life. Besides, I'd say we've come quite a long ways with counseling techniques to prevent crises.

I get the thought you are talking about individual crises that could be prevented (which I very much agree with, FTR); HOWEVER, you are applying it to the whole picture when that may not hold completely true across the entire board.

Have you ever dealt with ex convicts? I worked in a landscaping company (still do form time to time) that participated in an occupational rehabilitation program. I've dealt/worked with a few ex cons and these are NOT nice, or good, people. What prepared me for it is that I grew up constantly fighting with the types who push the limits and will test you at *every* possible chance they get. Basically as these types would have been as kids. Now, they are much more dangerous adults. They are in large part the type who are only sorry because they were caught. Many never change and will end up back in the system again. Some will change, and thank god for those, but it isn't easy. Others, victim of circumstance I suppose.

Even with armed guards and coordinating with law enforcement, you still have to watch yourself *and* the ex-cons; the guards can't see and/or stop everything. Watch out for coworkers' safety, too. Also, you NEVER NEVER NEVER turn your back on them, or become oblivious to their possible danger; you don't know if that guy is going for the shovel to dig with it, or to kill you with it when you least expect it.

Lastly, I ain't exactly thrilled about convicted killers sitting on death row for DECADES either, while our tax dollars pay for their room and board. If we don't eliminate the nasty dangerous people who refuse to change, what DO we do with them? They also now demand internet access and stuff because it is supposedly "a basic human right", btw. If you think it'll end there, think again.

--I think you get the point. We should try rehabilitating people and help them, but not to a detriment. FTR, I agree with that, but only to a point.

Ehh, I'll concede that, but don't forget what Q said - it really doesn't take a lot of modification in order to get the AK you buy at a gun store to be fullauto. And thus, we have our problem. Criminals are more than willing do do a few illegal mods on their guns in order to have a full auto AK47._EW_

Actually, I said that it takes a lot of illegal modification, namely an entire, mil-spec upper receiver with bolt (the receiver is the mechanical heart of the gun) to convert a semi-auto AK-47 to full auto. These are, of course, illegal and hard to get, AFAIK. I wouldn't even want to think what happens to people who are even suspected of possessing this kind of hardware, but Waco comes to mind.

The alternative would require access to and expertise with machine tools to either modify the semi-auto upper receiver and bolt or to completely manufacture new ones. This would actually be the preferable method for any smart crook because as long as it could be done in complete privacy no one else would know about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery

Best companion you could have would be a WW2 M1 Carbine, my personal favorite semi-auto rifle.

An excellent choice. It's compact and very light-weight. Plus, it's a piece of history. Another great choice would be the Mini-14 and its derivatives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

I like the M1, but... that whole *PING!!!* Dinner's ready! would be a drawback for me.

Avery's referring to the M1 carbine. It uses a regular detachable-box magazine.

What you're referring to is the M1 rifle, also known as the Garand. That it spits its clip out with a loud "ping" after firing the last round is not as big of a disadvantage as you would think. First, while it might alert the enemy that your rifle is now empty, it alerts you as well, so there's no time lost aiming and dry-firing an empty rifle. Second, as long as you have another clip handy you're golden, because that thing loads faster than any other infantry rifle that I know of. Just don't let the bolt crush your thumb.

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.

Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."

Well, here's my question. With >200 million guns in civilian hands in the US, why are the # of fatalities so low? If gun ownership presents such a moral quandry and apparent threat to society's welfare, then why are far more people killed in car accidents in a year than gun accidents, let alone crimes over the course of several? Should the govt also take away our automobiles? Why not just force people to rely on mass transit and then force everyone to pony up the money to finance such a system? Fact is, most gun owners in America are responsible. If I wish to purchase a 50cal machinegun and practice firing it and don't have a criminal record or history of mental illness or even poor eyesight, what business is it of your's? The whole idea of the second amendment was to keep our "ruling class" in check. Given the direction politicians have been drifting in over the last 1/2 century, I'd say the 2nd Amendment was pretty impressively and damned prescient.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

If I wish to purchase a 50cal machinegun and practice firing it and don't have a criminal record or history of mental illness or even poor eyesight, what business is it of your's?

Because when you have a gun that big you become a danger to those around you as well.

I feel it is my business if my country feels like it should give out heavy weaponry with no more restriction than "amendment, and your mind looks ok", especially when that weapon can go through cars or reinforced walls, and even cleanly through a tank. We have trained, federal professionals handle those weapons because they are designed to cause mass damage ontop of death.

While I get the car reference, there is a differences between a car and a gun. A car is primarily designed to get you from place to place with the chance of killing something while a gun is primarily designed to cause harm/kill the thing it is pointed at. One is a mode of transport, while the other is a tool designed to kill. You can target fire, but the primarily reason for its existence is to cause harm.

Assault Rifles and full-auto weapons are trouble because the spread and uncontrollability of such a weapon can hit civilians, go through walls and hit non-combatants. Sawn-off shotguns can be hidden, and the increased spread can hit more non-combatants. Grenades and other high explosives hurt without prejudice.

The second amendment gives people the right to bear arms. The vagueness could imply every weapon in existence up to atom bombs, while it can also imply defensive arms and not a stash of grenades.

Maybe people can be trusted with a full auto weapons enough to sell them at K-Mart, but personally I'd rather crime be performed with small arms and knives and have it be a -little- difficult for them to get their hands on heavy weapons than have the government personally give bigger weapons to the populous.

But while people can be trusted or distrusted, a bullet can and does hit without prejudice. A sawn-off shotgun spread, .50 cal bullet, full-auto spray bullet, etc fly without prejudice.

Call me paranoid, but I trust the average citizens as much as I trust our government, and I trust a .50 cal bullet even less.

Avery's referring to the M1 carbine. It uses a regular detachable-box magazine.

What you're referring to is the M1 rifle, also known as the Garand. That it spits its clip out with a loud "ping" after firing the last round is not as big of a disadvantage as you would think. First, while it might alert the enemy that your rifle is now empty, it alerts you as well, so there's no time lost aiming and dry-firing an empty rifle. Second, as long as you have another clip handy you're golden, because that thing loads faster than any other infantry rifle that I know of. Just don't let the bolt crush your thumb.

Whoops! My bad, You are right. I was thinking of the Garand. Personal preference would be the M1 in either form over the crappy M16 any day. Better range, and stopping power. And especially against zombies haha. Of course all 3 can have a silencer added. M16 gains some ground for the same reason the Army justified it.. lighter rounds means you can carry more rounds.

Interesting story about the M1 Garand. During WWII many outfits that were carrying the Garand would carry an extra clip. They would fire a few rounds, then toss the spare. When the enemy would poke his head up to fire(thinking the GI had to reload) Bang.

Oh and TA, I'd rather be able to go out and purchase them legally. I have the contacts to purchase them illegally. Heck if I had an extra 6000, I could even get a rocket launcher(single shot... not a good investment in my eyes... plus what good would that be on Z-Day). The problem is that law abiding citizens can't get what criminals can get.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Because when you have a gun that big you become a danger to those around you as well.

Merely your subjective opinion. Not inherent fact. Merely owning any weapon with a magazine that holds >1 bullet can make you a hazard in the abstract. Frankly, unless I mount a 50cal on a toyota/vehicle (like in 3rd world countries) and tool around the neighborhood firing at whatever catches my eye, your fear is dramatically overstated. Besides, how many people do you see commiting crimes with a 50 cal in the US anyway? Too damned impracticle.

Quote:

I feel it is my business if my country feels like it should give out heavy weaponry with no more restriction than "amendment, and your mind looks ok", especially when that weapon can go through cars or reinforced walls, and even cleanly through a tank. We have trained, federal professionals handle those weapons because they are designed to cause mass damage ontop of death.

No offense, but since we aren't talking about frag grenades, suitcase nukes or AFVs/APCs, or other heavy weapons (how many people could afford an ICBM in their backyeard anyway? ), you've only demonstrated a fear of something and little else (esp in light of prior mentioned "minimal" preconditions).

Quote:

While I get the car reference, there is a differences between a car and a gun. A car is primarily designed to get you from place to place with the chance of killing something while a gun is primarily designed to cause harm/kill the thing it is pointed at. One is a mode of transport, while the other is a tool designed to kill. You can target fire, but the primarily reason for its existence is to cause harm.

Primary reason for knives and other edged weapons is to cause harm. I'd say Skin has a fairly good grasp of that concept.

Quote:

Assault Rifles and full-auto weapons are trouble because the spread and uncontrollability of such a weapon can hit civilians, go through walls and hit non-combatants. Sawn-off shotguns can be hidden, and the increased spread can hit more non-combatants. Grenades and other high explosives hurt without prejudice.

Perhaps. But can cause doesn't always translate into "will casuse" (except in the case of criminals, who've no use for the law anyway).

Quote:

The second amendment gives people the right to bear arms. The vagueness could imply every weapon in existence up to atom bombs, while it can also imply defensive arms and not a stash of grenades.

Maybe people can be trusted with a full auto weapons enough to sell them at K-Mart, but personally I'd rather crime be performed with small arms and knives and have it be a -little- difficult for them to get their hands on heavy weapons than have the government personally give bigger weapons to the populous.

Call me paranoid, but I trust the average citizens as much as I trust our government.

As the Rolling Stones sang.....you can't always get what you want. Besides, if you believe many of the indiscriminate claims by liberal news sources, you'd think that 90% of all guns used my the cartels are from America. Fact is, the US border is so porous and enforcement so relatively lax, that getting guns illegally would likely only be a matter of $$. Interesting that you trust the goverment only as much as you trust the "average citizen", but are quite content to have same unworthy govt control all the guns? Selective paranoia, no? (rhetorical question here)

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

Oh and TA, I'd rather be able to go out and purchase them legally. I have the contacts to purchase them illegally. Heck if I had an extra 6000, I could even get a rocket launcher(single shot... not a good investment in my eyes... plus what good would that be on Z-Day). The problem is that law abiding citizens can't get what criminals can get.

I'm not denying that you can't get your hands on them. You can get an Ak-47 for like $30 in some of the more questionable areas.

But it seems to be the cold war concept. Sure, the weapon is there and you can get it, but does that necessarily mean that it should be available to everyone? If the public gets the big guns, aren't the criminals going to jive for -bigger- weapons? Then the cops need to stock up more, which beats on the tax payer as well as giving the criminals more incentive to get bigger weapons.

While your logic says "criminals should get them, then the civilians should get them to protect themselves", I see it as a somewhat opposite where this just leads to a civilian/criminal arms race

Also, when was the last time you heard about a bunch of guys gunning down some cops with an RPG in the USA? While it probably does happen, should we just keep the way to get it in the black market area to limit that happening? Wouldn't making that rocket and other non-prejudice based weaponry legal just increase the chances of them being used?

Because my supposition is that if you build it, they will come. Crime is always going to happen, but I'd prefer that these weapons be somewhat difficult to get and kept within a small world instead of making them available at k-mart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Merely your subjective opinion. Not inherent fact. Merely owning any weapon with a magazine that holds >1 bullet can make you a hazard in the abstract. Frankly, unless I mount a 50cal on a toyota/vehicle (like in 3rd world countries) and tool around the neighborhood firing at whatever catches my eye, your fear is dramatically overstated. Besides, how many people do you see commiting crimes with a 50 cal in the US anyway? Too damned impracticle.

You don't see many people committing crimes with .50 cal weapons because, for the most part... they aren't freely available? I thought that was the definition of gun control.

I feel my fear is justified when the weapon can go through the target you are shooting quite easily. It is a heavy arms weapon desined to take down tanks and other vehicles so I'd like, as I said way above, a reason better justified than "it is my right" in order to sway me to allowing civilians to own such a weapon.

This is not a criminal/civilian issue with me really. It is a person by person reason, and the people that currently can get their hands on a .50 cal weapon (namely a rifle) are so trained, licensed, etc.

If that is your point, then I agree. I just don't feel that anyone should be able to walk in with a gun liscene and say "I want a .50 cal. Just put it in the truck."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

No offense, but since we aren't talking about frag grenades, suitcase nukes or AFVs/APCs, or other heavy weapons (how many people could afford an ICBM in their backyeard anyway? ), you've only demonstrated a fear of something and little else (esp in light of prior mentioned "minimal" preconditions).

Hardly. Your example was a .50 cal weapon, which is banned due to its indiscriminate nature of going through multiple walls and people.

Other indiscriminate weapons include grenades and high explosives, so I feel the category fits. If you would like to narrow it down, then feel free.

And yes, Totenkopf, I do in fact fear a weapon that can go through a tank, building, etc being handed over the counter to someone. Sorry if that sounds unreasonable, or unpatriotic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Primary reason for knives and other edged weapons is to cause harm. I'd say Skin has a fairly good grasp of that concept.

I think you are misunderstanding me.

I don't think they should be banned outright, but that they should be heavily controlled due to their nature as high damage weapons.

From your post, I felt you were implying it was your right as an average joe to go to the mart and purchase a .50 cal weapon. In which case I respectfully disagree.

Also, A knife is controlled. It is in your hands, and you guide the attack (unless you throw it). I think you are missing my point about weapons that harm without prejudice being controlled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

As the Rolling Stones sang.....you can't always get what you want. Besides, if you believe many of the indiscriminate claims by liberal news sources, you'd think that 90% of all guns used my the cartels are from America. Fact is, the US border is so porous and enforcement so relatively lax, that getting guns illegally would likely only be a matter of $$. Interesting that you trust the goverment only as much as you trust the "average citizen", but are quite content to have same unworthy govt control all the guns? Selective paranoia, no? (rhetorical question here)

Sorry, you lost me at "liberal news."

But, as far as the paranoia goes, I don't trust myself, you, or frankly a "licensed" civilian as described by Skin (within the context of 'drivers license') with a weapon of that size. For more information look at my comments on indiscriminate weaponry.

And you'll have to elaborate on the theory of because the criminals have something, everyone should have that something as well. It, again, seems to be an arms race deal.

If it is so bad that people have access to these weapons, our solution is to... make them more easily available?

I, personally, just cannot follow that logic very well in this situation.

Also, I can't exactly follow the logic on why just because it is available in Mexico, every citizen should have it. You can buy any prescription drug you want down in Mexico, but we control them within the states for good reason.

But, again, I am replying to you under the assumption you are support indiscriminate weaponry being available to the public. You will have to narrow down exactly which weapons you want, because just saying ".50 cal" puts it in the indiscriminate weapons category. Maybe you were using it as an example, maybe not. I'm just working off of what I read.